Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[AUDub 11,147]

9 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

This is going to go about as well as the War on the Eastern Front. 

OMG, I may just turn the TV off till after November.

This is what bugs me so much about the "burn it all down!" progressives. We've lost the most progressive and important ally we had on the SCOTUS, and it will no doubt be a conservative replacing her. Elections matter. It sucks, but this is what ceding control gets you. 

[AUDub 11,147]

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This is what bugs me so much about the "burn it all down!" progressives. We've lost the most progressive and important ally we had on the SCOTUS, and it will no doubt be a conservative replacing her. Elections matter. It sucks, but this is what ceding control gets you. 

Red rose brigade: "I can't vote for Hillary or Biden because they're not progressive enough!" 

Conservatives, now in power: "Cool! Let me introduce you to Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh,  Amy Coney Barrett and John T. McFederalist Society Jr!"

[SocialCircle 570]

14 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

This just completely changed the game for November.  And you're 100% correct that Mcconnell will ram someone through.  The literal only hope for Dems is that some of the Senators in tight races won't go along with it for fear of losing the race.  But I still wouldn't put it past them to try a lame duck appointment if they lose the WH and Senate.

I’m glad you now agree with me. It is still a long time in political terms until the election. RIP RBG. 

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't really give a whit about appeasing the left either.  What bothers me is the abject hypocrisy of how it's being handled.  There's no excusing or explaining away that.

It is easy to explain. It is all political. It is all about power. 

[alexava 6,973]

Obama had the senate majority. RBG was a 2 time cancer survivor in her late 70s. Opportunity missed.  

[homersapien 11,367]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Do you actually think Court-packing would be wise? 

It's certainly defensible after McConnell disallowed a hearing for Garland followed by railroading Ginsberg's replacement.  Neither of those were/are "wise".  

I get your point, but perhaps the country's interest is best served by a balance of power between the two political parties, instead of just one party exerting dominance when they can.

 

[AUDub 11,147]

20 minutes ago, alexava said:

Obama had the senate majority. RBG was a 2 time cancer survivor in her late 70s. Opportunity missed.  

Hell, it was probably to late by 2011. 

[AUDub 11,147]

Ugh *too. 

Stupid grammar. 

[Leftfield 2,595]

54 minutes ago, alexava said:

Obama had the senate majority. RBG was a 2 time cancer survivor in her late 70s. Opportunity missed.  

This ignores the fact she loved her job, had no desire to leave, and was still fully capable of performing it. Not to mention she was one of the most influential judges in the court's history, whether you agreed with her decisions or not (and more often than not I didn't).

Forcing her out would have required a lack of human decency. The win-at-all-costs mentality already causes most of the dysfunction in our government.

[AUDub 11,147]

Here's what I'm doing if I'm Biden right now:

I'm on the phone with Barack Obama, and shortly thereafter releasing a shortlist.

It'll have one name and one name only. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

You know, if the DNC has let us have some room at the table HRC would have won and this would not be happening. Instead we got slapped away from the table and told “you got no place to go “ Well sorry but ymthats just not good enough. You want our votes? Then make a deal. Like every political agreement in history. Don’t shove us away from the table and then blame us. It doesn’t work that way. 

[AUDub 11,147]

The country at large won't vote for progressivism. It isn't ready for us.

And you're not interested in holding serve in the meantime. The movement is self-defeating. 

[Grumps 3,704]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Here's what I'm doing if I'm Biden right now:

I'm on the phone with Barack Obama, and shortly thereafter releasing a shortlist.

It'll have one name and one name only. 

I agree with you and if I were Trump I'd do the same thing. If the election became about Biden's SCOTUS nominee and Trump's SCOTUS nominee that would be a good thing.

I wish that McConnell would be honorable and wait to confirm anyone until after the election, but I doubt he will. He is the most despicable republican I know of.

[AUDub 11,147]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I agree with you and if I were Trump I'd do the same thing. If the election became about Biden's SCOTUS nominee and Trump's SCOTUS nominee that would be a good thing.

I wish that McConnell would be honorable and wait to confirm anyone until after the election, but I doubt he will. He is the most despicable republican I know of.

Trump ain't nominating BHO for s*** lol. Hell, he hates the man and would legalize murder if Obama had been the one to ban it. 

Edit: s*** I misinterpreted you. 

[alexava 6,973]

39 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This ignores the fact she loved her job, had no desire to leave, and was still fully capable of performing it. Not to mention she was one of the most influential judges in the court's history, whether you agreed with her decisions or not (and more often than not I didn't).

Forcing her out would have required a lack of human decency. The win-at-all-costs mentality already causes most of the dysfunction in our government.

Her dying words (not literally dying words) was to be replaced by a likeminded progressive. I have recently had a change of heart politically. But remain a progressive philosophically. I think we need a balance on the high court. I would have given a kidney to keep RBG around. I was also cognitive enough nearly a decade ago to understand how the justices are appointed and approved while also considering the election cycles and human life cycles. She overlooked these realities when she could have guaranteed her replacement would have suited her wishes. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

29 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Here's what I'm doing if I'm Biden right now:

I'm on the phone with Barack Obama, and shortly thereafter releasing a shortlist.

It'll have one name and one name only. 

I actually think it's the worst thing he could do.  Biden should be playing up Republican hypocrisy on the subject.  By releasing names, he then makes this into a referendum on "do you want Trump's list or my list" and that can hurt with with middle of the road voters.  

Also, very possible that Biden would nominate a moderate judge.  Would kill any support from the Sanders wing who now have a bone to grab onto and begrudgingly vote for Biden.  I've interacted with several already who were sitting out that are now going to vote Biden because of this issue.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

29 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You know, if the DNC has let us have some room at the table HRC would have won and this would not be happening. Instead we got slapped away from the table and told “you got no place to go “ Well sorry but ymthats just not good enough. You want our votes? Then make a deal. Like every political agreement in history. Don’t shove us away from the table and then blame us. It doesn’t work that way. 

For the last time, progressives didn't lose the election for Hillary.  Underperforming turnout with traditional Democratic voters such as African-Americans and union workers in the rust belt did.

[SocialCircle 570]

36 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Here's what I'm doing if I'm Biden right now:

I'm on the phone with Barack Obama, and shortly thereafter releasing a shortlist.

It'll have one name and one name only. 

I do think this will increase greatly the odds of Biden releasing his list. I suspect the list might cost him some independents because it will need to include at least one far left radical to appease the AOC wing. 

[AUDub 11,147]

8 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I actually think it's the worst thing he could do.  Biden should be playing up Republican hypocrisy on the subject.  By releasing names, he then makes this into a referendum on "do you want Trump's list or my list" and that can hurt with with middle of the road voters. 

Everyone already knows what time of day it is, though. 

8 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Also, very possible that Biden would nominate a moderate judge.  Would kill any support from the Sanders wing who now have a bone to grab onto and begrudgingly vote for Biden.  I've interacted with several already who were sitting out that are now going to vote Biden because of this issue.

Obama will probably be fairly moderate, to be honest, but he's also extremely popular and his name on the list would be a slam dunk. 

[AUDub 11,147]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

For the last time, progressives didn't lose the election for Hillary.  Underperforming turnout with traditional Democratic voters such as African-Americans and union workers in the rust belt did.

The progressive wing is the best metaphor for "stop hitting yourself! stop hitting yourself!" in existence. 

[AUwent 3,748]

24 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

For the last time, progressives didn't lose the election for Hillary.  Underperforming turnout with traditional Democratic voters such as African-Americans and union workers in the rust belt did.

Maybe not. But my god I wish Clinton had campaigned harder on SCOTUS.

It is still imperative for the Overton Window to shift left in the next 20 years (for the planet's sake!), as it has moved so far to the right for the last 40 years. And there are signs...20 or even 10 years ago, there's no way that a bartender, a middle school principal and nurse (at least two of whom identifying, incorrectly in my view, as democratic socialists) would've been able to unseat three political dynasties within a three year span. Yes, those were safe blue areas, but the point is the window is starting to move in that direction. Young people will have to show up, of course, if they want to be respected in electoral politics.

Still, I respect your consistency on that topic. I see many on Twitter blaming Bernie voters for this.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's certainly defensible after McConnell disallowed a hearing for Garland followed by railroading Ginsberg's replacement.  Neither of those were/are "wise".  

I get your point, but perhaps the country's interest is best served by a balance of power between the two political parties, instead of just one party exerting dominance when they can.

 

(And @Brad_ATX) I think you will appreciate some points contained in the below link:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/case-against-court-packing 

“The principled argument against 21st-century court packing is that it is dangerous to tamper with the mechanisms of democracy to thwart a single political figure — in this case, McConnell. For times change while power eventually ebbs. But restructuring the Supreme Court could have lasting repercussions long after the current crisis is as forgotten as the mid-1930s conservative decisions that jeopardized the New Deal.“

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Dems have signaled ending the filibuster and granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico regardless of the current situation. Obama even called for those things at John Lewis's funeral back at the end of July. They've also been talking about packing the court too. 

RBG or no RBG, they were going to push for all this if they won the WH and Senate anyway. This has been their plan for awhile. Pretending that ONLY NOW have they decided that it needs to be done to combat Republicans and Trump from getting a new Justice is blatantly false. They were never going to be forced to do this because they were going this route no matter what.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

(And @Brad_ATX) I think you will appreciate some points contained in the below link:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/case-against-court-packing 

“The principled argument against 21st-century court packing is that it is dangerous to tamper with the mechanisms of democracy to thwart a single political figure — in this case, McConnell. For times change while power eventually ebbs. But restructuring the Supreme Court could have lasting repercussions long after the current crisis is as forgotten as the mid-1930s conservative decisions that jeopardized the New Deal.“

So you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I don't favor court packing at all.  But right now, it's a political nuclear bomb that Schumer should threaten to use in a closed door setting.  He has also to be willing to do it, but the hope would be is that this would be a deterrent to having this nomination process before the new Senate and President are installed.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

43 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Everyone already knows what time of day it is, though. 

Agree to a point.  But don't allow them to drive the conversation.  By releasing names, Biden plays into Trump's hands.  The conversation needs to be holding Republicans accountable on consistency.  That's a winning hand.